<··············@mute.eaglets.com>
Sam Steingold <···@usa.net> writes:
> I took a part of my code and compiled it under both CMU CL and CLISP and
> timed the execution. The code basically does lots of number crunching,
> plus a moderate amount of consing while reading initial data (lists of
> length ~ 5,000). The results were quite surprising (to me, and to Bruno,
> who, when telling me to post, said that CMUCL will be the best, ACL the
> second and CLISP the last :-)
>
I did the same test on HP machine, using CMU lisp 17f. At first I got
the same results (CLISP is faster), but then noticed that in CMU lisp,
compilation doesn't load the compiled code. So I quit CMU lisp, loaded
the compiled code, and started simulation. This time CMU lisp was 4
time faster. I used some search procedure. I don't have the actual
results here, since I did it about 6 months ago.
In article <·····················@basement.replay.com>, ······@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
> <··············@mute.eaglets.com>
>
> Sam Steingold <···@usa.net> writes:
>
> > I took a part of my code and compiled it under both CMU CL and CLISP and
> > timed the execution. The code basically does lots of number crunching,
> > plus a moderate amount of consing while reading initial data (lists of
> > length ~ 5,000). The results were quite surprising (to me, and to Bruno,
> > who, when telling me to post, said that CMUCL will be the best, ACL the
> > second and CLISP the last :-)
> >
>
> I did the same test on HP machine, using CMU lisp 17f. At first I got
> the same results (CLISP is faster), but then noticed that in CMU lisp,
> compilation doesn't load the compiled code. So I quit CMU lisp,
You don't need to quit Lisp (I hope most people a writing
their code this way), loading the compiled code should be enough.
--
http://www.lavielle.com/~joswig/